Sanders is credible, in that he is qualified for the job, has popular policies that are constitutional and isn’t a rabble rousing lunatic, has been shown in polls to beats the Republican candidates nationally to the same or a greater extent than Clinton does, leads against Clinton in early states and has been gaining on her nationally, has more contributors to his campaign than anyone else…
I’m not denying that Clinton is the front runner, everyone knows that - although there doesn’t seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for her, it’s more that they seem resigned to her.
And Sanders doesn’t seem boring to the people that have been attending his rallies.
I already said I know why Trump is getting the coverage. If it makes racist screeds, it leads.
I’d just like to see generally progressive sites like this one champion him a bit more than they have - and electability/credibility hasn’t seem to come into it when giving space to, say, Lessig.
Is that really any more likely than Sanders winning?
I know that he has a certain populist appeal, but is that anywhere near broad enough and does he have any significant establishment support?
Why does that matter? Being smaller makes them less likely to be influenced?
The favors have been swung so far so not having a corporate charter would a huge disadvantage. Even non-profits get corporate charters.
Why wealth keeps funneling to the top, citizens are not not incorporated themselves. Is the answer to give in and give a corporate charter to every person when they turn 18, or fix the broken system?
I wonder about Clinton as the front runner. The assumption she has the nomination seems premature. I keep wondering if it would be different if the press didn’t keep treating him as unelectable. If that changed, I suspect he would be the front runner.
I don’t know that she supposedly is, either. Sanders seems to be doing well.
Why does it matter for what?
And sure, being smaller does make them less likely to be influenced in certain ways.
Are you denying that “news” outlets owned by massive corporations have an interest in squelching a candidate whose policies are far less favorable to massive corporations?
I personally don’t think Trump will win — I mean, can you imagine that guy sitting in some yahoo’s living room in Bumfuck, New Hampshire, begging for a vote? — but given his absolute domination in the polls, it’s at least plausible.
Since most of what I have heard from Trump so far has been unworkable at best or illegal at worst, even if he won he would shortly be out of a job.
I’m surprised you’ve found enough substance to critique; he seems to me to be nothing but attitude and posing.
That’s pretty much my point. Attitude and posing aren’t in the job description.
Exactly. The evidence says that Sanders is plenty electable. He consistently does well in election polls against the Republicans and I’d argue he’d be far stronger against them in debates than Clinton.
The only reason people are saying Sanders can’t win is because various people in the Media are saying it. The media was doing the same thing with Clinton/Obama last time around…and Obama won.
I don’t worry about Trump as president that much. He’s running for President, not dictator. Unless a bunch of Trump-lites get elected to the congress, it’s going to be tough for him to accomplish anything. Same goes for Sanders. He’s not going to be able to accomplish half of what he wants to do. Just look at the fight Obama had for health care reform.
To be fair, they kinda are.
Trump’s problem (beyond narcissistic megalomania, that is), is that he has no bread to go with his circuses. Hate Cruz, Rubio, et al., all you like, but at least they back up their bloviations with position papers and principles.
I see what you did there.
Trump is a Fascist’s fascist!
Ok, I see what you are saying and agree with you. I was thinking you meant credible as in credible threat.
The 538 people wrote about the Sanders campaign a few months ago and I don’t think much has changed since then. They were giving him a 5%-10% chance. C